[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

The April 29 demonstration in Istanbul
(epa)
April 30, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- A massive demonstration in Istanbul in support of secularism has highlighted the strong emotions surrounding the parliamentary election of Turkey's next president.

Up to 1 million people rallied in Istanbul on April 29.

Supporters of Turkey's secular establishment, led by the powerful military, don't want the next head of state to come from the ruling AK Party, which has roots in political Islam. They accused the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of planning an Islamist state and demanded the AK Party withdraw its presidential candidate, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.

"We need – we need to – we need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now," Tenet remembers telling Rice, who was then National Security Advisor. "We need to – we need to move to the offensive."

Tenet also claims that the administration never had a serious debate about whether Iraq posed an imminent threat or whether to tighten existing sanctions before its 2003 invasion.

Tenet also tells 60 Minutes the way the Bush administration has used his now famous "slam dunk" comment — which he admits saying in reference to making the public case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — is both disingenuous and dishonorable.

"It's the most despicable thing that ever happened to me," Tenet says. "You don't do this. You don't throw somebody overboard just because it's a deflection. Is that honorable? It's not honorable to me."

By Robert Windrem and Alex Johnson
NBC News
Updated: 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Besides giving him a chance to pay back Bush administration officials he believes left him to twist in the wind, former CIA Director George Tenet’s new book reveals sobering details of how the United States went to war with Iraq based on faulty intelligence and political opportunism.

_____________________________________________________

Brokaw Wonders Why Tenet Didn't Resign Given 'Rogue' Pentagon Operationhttp://newsbusters.org/node/12412
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 30, 2007 - 08:33.
The Bush administration: a bigger threat to national security than a foreign spy. That was Tom Brokaw's implicit assumption in his interview with former CIA Director George Tenet on this morning's "Today." Along the way, Brokaw accused former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of running a "rogue" intelligence operation.

BROKAW: In the opening passage you describe conversations in the Clinton administration between the Palestinians and the Israelis attempting to get some sort of a new peace arrangement. But the Israelis were demanding the release of Jonathan Pollard, a United States military intelligence analyst who had been selling them secrets, who's in jail for life. You said if you release Jonathan Pollard, I'll resign from the CIA. And yet when you were the head of the CIA, you had Condi Rice ignoring your warnings, Vice-President Cheney exaggerating the threats repeatedly, Don Rumsfeld in the Pentagon running what effectively was a rogue CIA, his own intelligence operation, and you didn't threaten to resign then.

TENET: Well, Tom, I don't know that I agree with the premise of everything in your question, but let me say this. I had a job to do. We had a war on terrorism, we had conflict in Iraq. I thought I could best serve my country by continuing to do my job every day. A Director of Central Intelligence is agnostic on policy because we have to become objective and give them the best data and I thought it was best to serve my country by staying in my job.

BROKAW: But if the country was not getting the true story, which it's fairly clear from your book that it was not, that the Vice-President had one clear view of what was necessary in Iraq, that the Defense Department had its own intelligence operation going on, and Condoleeza Rice was not responding with alacrity to your warnings, very clear warnings, in July of 2001 that an attack was imminent, doesn't a country deserve to know that?

TENET: Well, Tom, I chose to do my job in a way in which you stay inside the system. You do your best. You push your objective analysis. You make people aware of what you believe to be true. People are asking, why are you talking now, why were you silent so long? I certainly wasn't silent within the purview of my job and the councils of the administration in terms of what we said and how we said it.
Brokaw never explained how an intelligence operation created by a Secretary of Defense who was appointed by the president, and which operation in turn reported to the president, could be considered "rogue." And while Tenet oh-so-delicately declined to necessarily agree with all of Brokaw's accusations, he pointedly did not take issue with Brokaw's stunning "rogue" allegation.

Note also Brokaw's claim that "the country was not getting the true story." The former Nightly News anchor seems to align himself with the "Bush lied, people died" crowd.
Meanwhile, what ever happened to the stiff upper lip? Aren't spymasters supposed to be the ultimate in self-abnegation; grey men who are never seen, let alone heard? Not only does Tenet write his book, he makes an overwrought, highly emotional 60 Minutes appearance to flog it. What's worse, all his sturm and drang is in the service not of promoting national security but of righting what he sees as wrongs done to him and his reputation. Tenet should have waited at least until this administration was out of office before so publicly trying to settle scores. His self-serving outburst does nothing to serve his country, and to the contrary is surely the cause of disdainful amusement at the U.S.'s expense in various quarters around the world.

Aside: Is Meredith miffed that NBC apparently didn't consider her up to handling the Tenet interview? Would Matt Lauer have conducted it had he not been off on his "Where in the World is Matt Lauer Tour" or was Brokaw always going to do the interview in any case?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

Last edited by cyrus on Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

No matter how hard he tried, George Tenet was never going to be a Bush insider. He had worked for a Democrat on Capitol Hill. He was tapped to be CIA director by, of all people, Bill Clinton. He was the lone foreign policy holdover from eight years of Democratic rule in Washington. And so when George W. Bush told Tenet he could stay on for a while in 2001, it was on terms that sounded distinctly probationary. Which meant that while Tenet had plenty of access to the Oval Office under Bush, he was never one of the boys.

This is almost painfully clear in Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm, his memoir about his seven years as CIA boss currently excerpted on Time.com and in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine. The book — and Tenet's publicity tour interviews, including one with Time.com — has once again reignited all the old fights between Bush Administration neoconservatives and Republican internationalists — starting with 9/11 and continuing right through to the war in Iraq.

Because Tenet is no neo-con, his probation inside the Bush Administration never really ended. When it came time to find someone to take the blame for Iraq, Tenet maintains, he took the fall. Now, several years later, the book is partly a revealing score-settler: Tenet tags Secretary of State and former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for mishandling her job before 9/11 and being slow to realize that Osama bin Laden was preparing to attack the U.S. Rice is portrayed as a National Security adviser who avoided fights, rather than one who tried to settle them. The book suggests that the 9/11 commission protected Rice in its final report and omitted facts that would have embarrassed the relatively more-moderate Secretary of State. Tenet doesn't believe the plotters could have been stopped; but he does believe the U.S. could have moved more quickly in both the Clinton and Bush years to disrupt al-Qaeda.

And Tenet's barbs for Rice are few compared to those he directs at Vice President Cheney, his former top aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby and a host of neo-conservative fellow travelers at the Pentagon. With very few declarative sentences that anyone can quote, Tenet nonetheless repeatedly makes it clear that neoconservatives in and out of the Bush Administration quietly pushed the U.S. to war with Iraq from the very first day after 9/11. The decision to go to war was made, he said, without any clear decision meetings; it proceeded at a number of critical points without any guidance from the CIA. Tenet comes close to saying that a secret committee took the country to war and cherry-picked the evidence to sell the war to the public.

Which gets back to Tenet's own responsibility for what unfolded. At the heart of the book is a confession — but also an unconvincing argument. Tenet takes a lot of blame for the poor analysis of the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He explains how the CIA used unreliable sources and vague extrapolations to make a judgment about Saddam's arsenal that was little better than an educated guess. Nonetheless, Tenet says, he believed it. When it came time to make those conclusions public, the CIA (and everyone it was advising) wasn't very careful about how they worded things.

When it comes to his storied "slam dunk" comment in the Oval Office, Tenet does not deny saying it. He says instead that it was an aside and did not refer to the quality of the prewar intel. It referred instead, he says, to whether the President had the goods to make the public case for war. And the meeting in question was not about whether to go to war or not.

This is a distinction without a difference and is neither very convincingly told in his memoirs or, in his interview with TIME, very forcefully argued. "I will never believe until the day I die," he said, "that that comment had anything to do with the timing or the legitimacy of going to war. It was about, we were trying to construct a public case."

And yet it is true that Cheney and Rice repeatedly pointed to this comment years later when the White House was looking for others to blame. The neoconservatives had distrusted the CIA for years, decades really. The war over the intelligence and who was to blame was in many ways just the latest battle. All through the last few years, when the White House has found itself in political trouble over the war, officials there have blamed the CIA for providing poor intelligence.

In fact, on the Sunday shows, Rice more or less took the same approach as before, telling Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face The Nation, "The sad fact of how all this has gotten talked about is that there was a problem with intelligence." As for whether "slam-dunk" had been a device for scapegoating Tenet and the CIA, Rice demurred, but added, "Yes, George said it, but we all thought the intelligence was strong."

It is on the fairness of the blame game where Tenet was his most forceful in his interview with TIME. Drawing a distinction between the CIA and the White House, he said: "So here's what I'll say: we stand up and take responsibility when we're wrong. I have priority responsibility on WMD. Let's not shirk our responsibility. What's your responsibility? What's your responsibility? I find it to be disingenuous to say, "let's let it all on them when it goes wrong.'"

The book has some other surprises: it is in many ways an unabashed love letter to the CIA. Officers are praised for their wisdom and energy at every turn; even in the agency's worst moments — as when it failed to sufficiently alert the FBI about two 9/11 hijackers in the country in 2001 — Tenet is unable to find much fault with his troops.

Nor does Tenet have many — hardly any, really — discouraging words about President Bush, who gave Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom despite (or perhaps,in part, because) of all the backstabbing and finger-pointing that went on between the CIA and his own West Wing. One of the few times Bush appears in the book is when he finds time to comfort Tenet's son, who is discouraged by all the criticism of his father in the press.

That feeling is surely something that Bush, whose own father was CIA director at a controversial moment in history, knows something about.

Reasons for Bush Admin Failure in Iraq, Iran policy Based On Condi Rice Policy Recommendation:
1- In Past 6 years Bush Admin ignored the push for Human Rights, Secular Democracy, Free Society for Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan
2- Bush Admin ignored Dr. Constantine C. Menges warning before his death regarding massive spending by Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran in Iraq....
3- Bush Admin should not have allowed Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah to participate in political process when they don't agree with the concept of secular democracy ...
4- FREE Elections are meaningful process when we can establish FREE Societies .....
5- When there is no security, the Elections can not provide optimal solution.

Dr. Constantine Menges wrote:

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.

Dr. Constantine Menges wrote:

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.

To So Called Realist Appeasers Who Do Not See The Difference Between Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran and Communist China or Soviet Union....

FREE Society, Human Rights, Secular Democracy movements in Iran abandoned, genuine allies and admirers of the United States left to fend for themselves; this is not the moral or intellectual compass we should follow to please EU3, China, Russia Neo Colonialists and Saudi Arabia if USA wish to be a progressive Super Power.
1. The "War on Terror" which is a subset of "War on Taazi" UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Taazi Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The TAAZI terror state and fear society can not create peace and stability.

2. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
3. The Administration must abandon its failed policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately. The War on Terror can not be fought in serial and slowly ....
4. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
5- We have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate are as follows:

* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran including its support organization such as Alavi Foundation in New York City.
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Release the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition to be spent on strike funds and promotion of democracy.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran. The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.

AmirN wrote:

The Bush administration correctly identified the threat to global safety and stability when it pointed to the three nations that it included as an axis of evil. However, it failed in its deeper understanding of the two that are in the middle east. It miscalculated the role of Islam and the interconnection of those two nations. Most importantly, it misidentified its highest priority and the most imminent threat.

More than three years after the invasion of Iraq, it is clearer now more than ever what a circus Iraq has become. Month after month, it seems that America is being set back further and further instead of approaching its intended goal. No one can at this point deny the mess that is Iraq. The Republicans have lost both houses, the Secretary of Defense just got fired, the President essentially admits he is in a losing strategic situation, a Committee of “Experts” has been appointed to make recommendations on how to improve the disaster, and most Americans are calling for a withdrawal in the immediate future. America is living its deja vous of Vietnam.

How could this happen to the most mighty military of the world?

As with Vietnam, America’s failure stemmed again from not having clear military goals, and from expecting the military to fill in the gap of a sound strategic agenda. America’s flaw was not its military failure, but objective failure.

To conquer a place is not a great achievement, I always say. To hold a place is the achievement. It was clear from the beginning of the invasion that America would have no problem conquering Iraq. The challenge would lie in holding and securing Iraq. To hold and secure a place comes not only from military might, but from correct planning and policy before the invasion even begins.

So what was America’s biggest strategic mistake?

Miscalculating the role of Islam and the way that Iran fit into the problem. It is evident that Bush planned initially to control Iraq and Afghanistan, and then to turn to Iran. That was a big mistake of priority. The Iraq of 2003 was small potatoes compared to the Iran of 2003 in its significance and threat. Though Saddam was a threat to the region and needed to be removed eventually, his position was too weak to pose a real danger at the time. The real danger came from Iran, and continues to come from Iran. Iran was and continues to be a clear and present danger. Iran is the one that is actively pursuing WMD’s and is the single greatest contributor to terrorism in the world, funded by the resources of the single most powerful nation of the middle east.

It was a fatal error to enter Iraq without first dealing with Iran. The first strike in any fight is usually the most decisive. It makes sense to first take out the biggest and strongest foe prior to turning attention to smaller foes. Yet, America did the opposite. It chased after the weaker Iraq while leaving Iran intact and capable of tormenting it.

The other mistake was not recognizing the importance of Islam in that region as it pertains to political power. The majority of Iraq is Shia. There is a great inter-relationship that binds Iran and Iraq that goes back millennia. What is the term “Iraq?” It means “lower Iran.” It has been a part of Iran since the time of the Achaemenids. Mesopotamia has fallen in and out of Iran’s hands throughout the millennia, and shares a great bond with Iran. Only after the arrival of Islam in the 7th century did Mesopotamia significantly separate from Iran proper. Ironically, the cultural separation that occurred back then was followed by another more sinister bond shortly thereafter: the bond of Shia Islam.

That bond was sealed with the Saffavid dynasty, which named Shia Islam as the state religion in order to better unify the empire. Prior to the Saffavids, even though the Shia sect existed it was not politically significant. Under the Saffavids, Mesopotamia’s bond with Iran was rekindled with the fire of Shia Islam, and that connection continues to this day. Incidentally, the time of the Saffavids was the last time that Mesopotamia existed within the borders of Iran. Soon thereafter it would be a part of the Ottoman Empire up until its disintegration after WWI. In the aftermath of WWI, that Empire was arbitrarily carved up into smaller regions that eventually gained independence as artificial Arabic nations, one of which was Iraq.

It is for that reason that Iraq’s sense of national identity is relatively weak. It is a nation that should have never been. Although Mesopotamia was the home of one of the earliest and brightest civilizations, that civilization died long ago. Its traces are more alive in the Iranian civilization than in Iraq. Other than that civilization itself, that region has only been a province of one Empire after the next, never again finding its own identity. The people of that nation therefore have no connection to a central government and form bonds only within tribal networks or reach out to another concept altogether: religion. Within this outreach, they become the pawns of their Iranian counterparts and Mullahs. Furthermore, Islam itself was a religion custom made for recruiting subjects for war. Islam was created for war and thrives in times of war.

The result is that via religious authority the Islamic government in Iran weighs a heavy political control in Iraq. Iran has in this way turned the tables on the Americans and has made Iraq a nightmare. It has no shortage of willing participants, and it provides them with superb training, arming and funding prior to unleashing them upon the Americans and other Iraqis. Added to this are other non-Shia terrorist organizations that target the Shias and Americans and the recipe becomes complete for the American nightmare.

Iran is really at war with the US. It has been ever since the first hostage was taken in 1979. America is just not honest enough with itself to admit it. Over and again, the current regime in Tehran has committed acts of war against the US. The scenario has become more heated since the Iraqi invasion. Iran is also at war with Israel. This was demonstrated last summer with the war in Lebanon that the Iranian Hezbollah waged upon Israel.

So long as the Islamists hold power in Tehran and control the resources of that relatively powerful and important nation, a US victory is impossible and extremely costly at best. One cannot fight a monster by engaging only its tentacles. This monster grows new tentacles very easily. It must be engaged at its head; at its source. The Mullahs can keep this up forever if their fight is carried out only in Iraq, Lebanon, or other third party nations. The US, however, will grow weary as it already has and will be forced into defeat.

The war in Iraq is un-winnable in Iraq. The US must realize this, and realize it fast before it’s too late. If it simply abandons Iraq or is defeated there, the Shia Mullahs will become even more powerful.

Had America held off on invading Iraq until the Mullah regime was dispatched first, then it could have taken its time and tried different avenues in neutralizing Iran. However, now that it has made the error of committing to Iraq first, it does not have the luxury of time when dealing with Iran. It must act, and it must act now.

Its only recourse in securing global security is to bring about the demise of this regime by any means possible before it completely loses Iraq.

There are many means to bring about such a demise, many of which are peaceful. However, unlike its prior track-record, it must be fully committed to the task. A pitiful gesture such as allocating 70 million dollars for radio / television subsidization of dissidents is laughable and will have no serious effect. The IR spends ten times as much on its propaganda, if not more. Furthermore, information propagation will only go so far. More serious steps need to be taken, and a far larger budget must be committed.

The current war in Iraq is costing about 80 billion dollars per year. What is 70 million compared to that? It is peanuts. America is spending 1000 times as much fighting the tentacles of the beast than engaging that beast in its lair. Ironically, with that humongous effort in Iraq both in dollar amount as well as human toll, America will get no-where.

If peaceful means do not prove effective almost immediately, then America must act militarily in Iran. I have for long condemned the idea of American military action against my homeland, hoping that peaceful change will occur. The events of the past year have served to nullify my prior notion that Iran can and should only be freed by the hands of Iranians. Perhaps that is possible, but seeing the direction that Iran is headed a delay in its freedom will mean a greater cost to itself as well as the rest of the world. Furthermore, the American error of creating a mess in Iraq that the Mullahs are now reaping has forced the need for the expedition of regime change in Iran.

The US has been following the avenue of nuclear proliferation in order to get at Iran. That is an important reason, but it is not its only ticket to Tehran. As previously mentioned, Iran has been at war with America for decades now. Its role in Iraq is a clear act of war against America. Should it wish, the US has the justification it needs to attack this regime in any way it wishes, including an all out invasion.

Many would view a military strike on Iran in the midst of an already unpopular war in Iraq as madness. However, when viewed with the knowledge that Iraq is what it is mostly because of Iran, that apparently insane strategy makes perfect sense. With the removal of the Mullah regime in Tehran, the Iraqi situation will be greatly pacified. With the removal of the Mullahs, more than half of the world’s terrorism will collapse, with the other half being placed on death row.

It will be a very difficult sell to the American people to attack Iran given the failure in Iraq. It will be unpopular to say the least. However, the President must follow the correct strategy, not the popular strategy. Given America’s dire situation in the middle east currently, it has little more to lose. This administration has already been deemed a failure in its middle east policy. If Bush does nothing in regard to Iran, he will still go down in history as the buffoon that lost Iraq and the middle east to Islamic terrorism. However, if he takes a chance and goes for the head of the monster, he may yet salvage the ME, Iraq, Iran, and indeed the world. He may turn defeat into an astonishing victory. He may turn his legacy from failure to reverence. More importantly, he may turn American fear into American security.

It is said that it is always darkest right before dawn. There is still a chance to turn this disaster into success. It is time to go for bust.

A senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr. Menges, 64, was one of the architects of Ronald Reagan’s effort to defeat the Soviet Union.

“Dr. Menges was a heroic figure in the Reagan White House,” former ambassador Faith Whittlesey said. Whittlesey served as the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and on the senior staff of the Reagan White House. “He played a major role in the White House, oftentimes behind the scenes, in helping Bill Casey, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Bill Clarke not only devise the strategy that defeated the Soviets, but in implementing it.”

Dr. Menges had joined the Reagan administration at the urging of CIA Director William J. Casey and he served briefly at the agency as its National Intelligence Officer for Latin America.

In 1983 he left the CIA and joined the White House’s National Security Council to serve as special assistant to the president for National Security Affairs.

Among his many policy achievements, Dr. Menges may be best remembered for having been the key advocate and planner for the successful U.S. effort to liberate Grenada in 1983.

The successful military operation – sometimes referred to as the “Menges Plan” – liberated the island nation from a Castro-backed communist government. The Grenada liberation has been described as a major turning point in U.S. Cold War strategy.

During the 1980s Menges became a champion of implementing President Reagan’s anti-communist efforts in Latin America, including support for the “Contra” insurgency that threatened the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Dr. Menges helped form the Reagan administration’s policy of supporting indigenous democratic forces that could combat what he viewed as the Soviet’s “indirect aggression” against the West. The policy meant limited costs and no risk of U.S. casualties.

In his book “Inside the National Security Council: The True Story of the Making and Unmaking of Reagan’s Foreign Policy,” Dr. Menges argued that the National Security Council's main role was to offer the president the best, most impartial information for decision-making.

During the Reagan years, however, Dr. Menges revealed that the State Department often acted to thwart presidential directives and subvert the national security process. He complained that the failure of several senior Reagan aides to follow this process had led to the Iran-Contra scandal.

After leaving government, Dr. Menges continued his academic work on foreign policy and national security matters. He regularly briefed members of Congress and senior government officials on emerging threats.

In recent years, he warned of three major threats against the United States. These included:

# Growing pro-Castro alliance throughout Latin America. Dr. Menges warned that a foreign policy disaster of titanic proportions was festering in Latin America, as pro-Castro regimes had taken root in Venezuela, Brazil and other countries. He noted that more than 220 million Latinos had fallen into Castro’s orbit in the past few years due to U.S. foreign policy negligence.

# State-sponsored terror. A strong supporter of President Bush’s war on terror, Dr. Menges believed the U.S. was wise to focus upon state sponsors of terror, including Iraq. But from the earliest days of the U.S. effort to remove Saddam Hussein, Dr. Menges said that Iran would try to subvert U.S. efforts in southern Iraq. He suggested the Bush administration had not adequately prepared to deal with Iran’s subversion. He claimed the Iranians had already poured $1 billion into Iraq to support thousands of subversive agents.

# China’s superpower rise. Dr. Menges believed the U.S. should continue to engage China in trade and cultural matters, but believed the U.S. should put strict linkages between U.S. economic ties and demands for human rights. Dr. Menges saw China as an emerging superpower that could pose new dangers to the U.S. At the time of his death he was completing his latest book, “China, The Gathering Threat.”

Dr. Menges is survived by his beloved wife, Nancy, and his son, Christopher.

Iman - Thank you. I’m sorry I started the program in Farsi but I had to tell our audience that ah how fortunate we are to have you this morning here and gave a brief background of all the fantastic work you have done in the past and for the goals of democracy world wide in your career. And briefly mentioned your work about Iran. Ah Dr. Menges um I was going to ask you, before we get into specific questions, would you be kind enough to have some opening remarks with regards to your own analysis of Iran’s roll in today’s ah political environment and atmosphere especially with regard to Iraq, U.S. policies and how you see things going and then we can get into details.

eh with, my pleasure. I would want to tell your listeners I’m an immigrant like many of those in the Iranian exile movement who’s family apposed a terrible dictatorship this one in Nazi Germany and who my father was in the democratic opposition and then was arrested and was able to get out in time and so I came here as an immigrant and like so many of you in the Iranian exile movement I’m pleased that the United States of America gave my family refuge and the opportunity for freedom. And of course it’s the freedom of every human being that President Bush seeks also that the people of Iraq and the people of Iran can be free that they live ah normal lives without having a coercive brutal and repressive regime imposing on them.

I will have to translate as we go along if you don’t mind?
Iman translates

And I ah have been privileged to be able to work on behalf of human freedom and democracy in the United States in various roles including in the government, as I know you said, working for three Presidents um and I have been deeply concerned by the actions of the dictatorship in Iran since it came to power in 1979. Ah we know that the Iranian regime has is the most active state sponsor of terror in the world. That it is developing weapons of mass destruction. Taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the people of Iran in order to develop these terrible weapons. Chemical biological and nuclear weapons and we know that the Iranian regime has been brutal and repressive at home and has denied many, many people in Iran their rights. So there is. I begin looking at the dictatorship in Iran with a great deal of concern.

Iman translates

Perhaps your listeners are surprised if I talk about the dictatorship in Iran. Um I, because of course, it has permitted elections and there has been some degree of political competition and some degree of openness for those elections. However, as every citizen in Iran knows, the Supreme Leader actually controls the real power in Iran through his direct control over the secret police, the military, all the media, the appointment of the prayer leaders, and through the council of guardians and the expediency council which can both deny people the right to run for election and can veto legislation on it’s own. And these institutions of small numbers of people are controlled by the leader who in my view and according to the view of most individuals who are clerics in the clergy of the Shiite Islamic clergy is acting in a heretical way. Because under Shiite Islam the clergy is not supposed to rule directly and the Khomeini view of this is a heresy in Islam. But is a dictatorship with some process of elections attached to it.

Iman translates

And I eh, as to the international actions of the Iranian dictatorship, we must recall the fact that it is the Iranian dictatorship that in 1979 declared war against the United States calling it the great Satan. And saying the United States had to be destroyed. And the Untied States and its allies also in the region had to be destroyed. And we know that the Iranian dictatorship also began a great deal of terrorist secret terrorist warfare not only against the United States but also against Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other countries. Which did not have Islamic regimes to its liking in the 1980’s.

Iman Translates

And as part of that secret warfare, through terrorism that the secret Iranian dictatorship has conducted it has killed an estimated 1,500 Americans. And until Sept. 11th 2001, more Americans have died at the hands of the Iranian dictatorship than from any other source of terrorism.

Iman Translates

And we should recall that it was the terrorist movement Hezbollah supported by Iran in which with headquarters in Syria occupied Lebanon that not only helped destroy Lebanon but also blew up the U.S. embassy in 1983 in Lebanon and some months later killed, in one night, 241 marines who were there on a peacekeeping mission. As a dramatic, and the Khobar Towers attack in the mid 90”s in Saudi Arabia is a further example of some of this secret warfare through terrorism that Iran has waged directly against the United States.

Iman Translates

As with many other aggressive dictatorships the paradox is that while the Iranian dictatorship is brittle and vulnerable at home because of the broad opposition and disaffection of the people after 25 years of repression, economic failure and um extreme control efforts of control. It is effective in international secret warfare aggressive secret warfare and has been for all the 25 years of its existence, as it uses terrorism to kill innocent men, women and children in other countries.

Iman translates

If we look at Afghanistan it is paradoxical that after the brave Afghan Muslim resistance movements were able to um force the Soviet Union to leave to withdraw its troops ah it is… it was Iran, the Iranian dictatorship, that incited ah and funded Gobadine Hecmachar and other pro-Iranian organizations to prevent what would have been the consolidation of moderate Islamic constitutional republic in 1989 - 90 since five of the seven armed resistance groups in Afghanistan wanted to establish that but it was stopped by Iran’s secret warfare which created chaos and disorganization in Afghanistan. Opening the way then to Pakistan’s creation of the Taliban as another form of ah Islamic fundamental dictatorship. That then took over.

Iman translates

The Afghan Taliban regime then gave ah facilities, training camps and facilities to the Al-Qaida Islamic extremist movement, which in many respects, I think, drew it inspiration from the extremism of the Iranian dictatorship. And that in turn lead to the expansion of terrorist attacks in the 1990’s and ultimately to the massive attack on the United States on September 11th 2001. And then the correct actions of President Bush in using military force to remove the Taliban regime in the fall of 2001

Iman translates

Once the Taliban regime had been removed ah the Iranian regime then immediately used secret warfare methods again, in infiltrating into Afghanistan again, many armed Afghans whom it had trained and funded and working with several individuals in Afghanistan to begin a campaign to prevent the stabilization of the new government. um and eh this these secret warfare activities in Afghanistan are a large part of the explanation of why things there are still unsettled and not yet stable in a constitutional and a smooth constitutional republic.

Iman translates

And that brings me to the current situation in Iraq. Ah where Iran has also positioned itself to wage a intense secret war against the people of Iraq who constitutional democracy and against the United States and all those who are trying to support them.

Iman translates

I want to make clear to the listeners in Iran that I understand that it was Iraq and the bathist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein that began the terrible war in 1980 against Iran intending in the expected confusion after the coming to power of Khomeini take some of the Iranian territory and oil fields. Iraq was responsible for beginning the war, which cost millions of lives in both countries most tragically.

Iman translates

And it was Iraq also, the Iraq secular dictatorship of Saddam Hussein that invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990 occupied it and was exceptionally brutal toward the people of Kuwait until the United States lead a broad coalition which forced Iraq out of Kuwait and liberated Kuwait and um pushed the Iraqi forces out. And lead to a peace agreement under which Iraq was required to disarm and surrender all of its weapons of mass destruction and many categories of weapons.

Iman translates

A part of the brutality of Saddam Hussein and an important part was his persecution of the Shiite Islam his killing of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims leading then additional hundreds of thousands fleeing to Iran ah to save their lives and to avoid terrible persecution that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship unleashed upon the Shiite Muslims of Iraq.

Iman translates

It was good that Iran gave the Shiite of Iraq refuge and let them come in and let them live peacefully and avoid the terrible persecution and brutality of Saddam Hussein.

Iman translates

And while a hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites were living in Iran’s territory, the Iranian dictatorship decided it would try to recruit some of them to become its allies in a future effort to bring about in Iraq a Shiite regime like that in Iran. That is the rule of the clergy, Shiite extremist regime, like that in Iran that would be pro-Iranian and closely linked to the current dictatorship in Iran.

Iman translates

The Iranian dictatorship did not want to have the Saddam Hussein dictatorship succeeded by a moderate constitutional democracy for fear of the example this would set for the people of Iran and the inspiration it would give them for them to liberate themselves also from the clerical dictatorship.

Iman translates

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.

Iman translates

Before I describe these five I want to make clear that it is my judgment that the overwhelming majority of Shiite Muslim in Iraq, as in Iran, desire a moderate free constitutional government. They do not want to live under an extremist clerical dictatorship. And that his also true for the overwhelming majority of Iraqi exiles who were in Iran and who have now returned to Iraq. They want to have a moderate constitutional government and to live in peace with Iran and at peace with all their neighbors.

Iman translates

What we know from history and the history of many counties including the country where I come from, where I came from originally, Germany, that violent minorities can overwhelm the good intentions and hopes of the peaceful majorities in counties if the violent minorities are organized and ruthless and the peaceful majorities don’t get the help they need to defend themselves and to establish moderate constitutional institutions.

Iman translates

Now let’s come to the five major aspects of Iran’s secret war activities ah against freedom and democracy in Iraq and against the U.S. and its allies in Iraq. Um, first Iran established on its territory with Iraqi exiles during the 1990’s a political organization called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI the initials SCIRI the initials spell in brief and Iran has also secretly funded in large measure the DOWA political party, which is an Islamic fundamentalist political party ah that has eah from Iraq.

Iman translates

Once the liberation of Iraq from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship began in March 2003. Iran told the Iraqi exiles who were members of this political organization were told to return to Iraq and to begin organizing politically in each town trying to take over political authority town by town and prepare the way to either govern that way or to win elections. With, of course, secret large secret Iranian funds that would be given to them.

Iman translates

While all member of this Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are not necessarily Iranian agents, the leadership is directed and controlled by Iran. And it views itself as allies of Iran. And when the senior leader, the Ayatollah Mohammad Saeed A Hakim was cooperative with the coalition provisional authority in the summer of 2003 he was killed on August 29, 2003 in two simultaneous suicide bombings which killed another 94 people and which I believe were the products of Iranian cover action and which an Iranian defector has also said came and from the actions of the Iranian dictatorship.

Iman translates

It is worth remembering that tragic murder of 95 people took place outside the very holy shrine of Imom Ali in Najaff, Iraq. And, um, I would also note that the bother of Ayatollah Hakim, who succeeded as the new leader if the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq has since been totally cooperative with the Iranian dictatorship. And totally carries out their purposes and wishes ever since. So that’s one component, the political component, is one of the five.

Iman translates

The second component of Iran’s secret war to take over Iraq is Moktada al-Sadr, who is the son of Ayatollah al Sadr. Who was a close ally of Khomeini and agreed with the Shiite clerisy should rule directly and who was tragically murdered by Saddam Hussein.

Iman translates

Moktada al-Sadr, in my judgment is responsible for the murder of Ayatollah al Quee who is a, was a very wonderful Shiite cleric who had been in exile from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in England and returned to Iraq after the liberation in April of 2003.

Iman translates

The younger Ayatollah al Quee was the son of the former grand Ayatollah of Iraq who actually had been an opponent of Ayatollah Badra and of Khomeini and adhered to the traditional Shiite view that the clergy should be an important source of spiritual guidance in the society but should not rule societies directly. And it’s Moktada al-Sadr that who then killed the son of the opponent of his father who would have been an important source of leadership for a moderate clergy for traditional Shiite view of the roll of the clergy and for cooperation in the process of moving Iraq from dictatorship to modern constitutional democracy with respect for Islam and a special place for Islam.

Iman translates

Your listeners in Iran should know that the Iraq judicial officials have issued a warrant for the arrest of Moktada al-Sadr for the murder of Ayatollah al Quee and in April of 2003. It’s also important to remember that two days after the murder of Ayatollah al Quee it is supporters of Moktada al-Sadr who surrounded the home of the current Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Iraq. Surrounded the home and demanded that he leave Iraq immediately. An example of this war within the clergy that Iran is waging against the moderate the moderate majority of the Iraqi clergy trying to bring the violent minority to power through the activities of Moktada al-Sadr. Among other things that Iran is doing.

Iman translates

Your listeners may ask, “How do I know Moktada al-Sadr is working so closely with Iran”. The answer is that Moktada al-Sadr’s actions precisely carry out the purposes of Iran but more importantly he went on June 6th 2003 at the commemoration of the death of Khomeini to visit in Iran where he met with Ayatolla Hararei who is an Iraqi Shiite cleric who agrees with the Iranian dictatorship that the clergy should rule and who I believe is the Iranian dictatorship’s candidate to be the successor to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. He met with him but he also met with Ayatollah Rafsinjani and in Qume with Kasim Solomen Mani who is commander of the International Revolutionary Guard Corps Jerusalem forces responsible for Iran’s aggressive cover action.

Iman translates

The, at the time a year ago Moktada al-Sadr had about an estimated 300 Iranian military intelligence personnel supporting him and he was starting to recruit Iraqi young men. Now a year later he has an estimated six to ten thousand Iraqi armed young men who have been misled into his extreme ideology and who have been armed and funded, I believe and is my judgment I believe that the Iranian regime is part of its covert action in Iraq. Part of its efforts to intimidate the people of Iraq and also to intimidate the moderate majority of Iraqi Shiite clergy.

Iman translates

Now this brings us to the third component of Iran’s secret activities, as I see it, and that is the Shiite clergy in Iraq. Where in addition to the intimidation and coercive activities of Moktada al-Sadr. Iran is trying to use money and relationships with elements of the clergy to encourage them to take a position against the United States and against movement towards constitutional government and to bring them into its camp through positive means and incentives and um and seduction as it were and persuasion and money rewards and the likes. So there is a very active program with eah in an effort to win over for the Iranian clerical dictatorship the support of the majority of the clergy in Iraq.

Iman translates

I think this will fail because the Iraqi Shiite clergy knows the story of Iran. Knows what has happened in the twenty-five years of repression and poverty and failure in Iran. But the activity is very well financed and very active and it is… it may also fail because the violence and coercion of Moktada al-Sadr was so visible and so shocking right at the start that this may in fact have the opposite effect of that intended by the Iranian dictatorship.

Iman translates

However, as the people of Iran know very well the in a dictatorship people are cut off from information. One reason that this program and the work of Mr. Horovati and this effort and Radio Sedaye is so important to try to bring the people of Iran some alternative view and alternative information. But in a dictatorship, people are cut off from information as they were in Iraq for many years. Therefore the media and what is conveyed in the media becomes very, very important in times of political transition.

Iman translates

And that is why the forth component of Iran’s secret war against freedom in Iraq is… it’s massive investment with the Iranian’s people’s money in television and radio media aimed at the people of Iraq. It may surprise the people of Iran to know that right now about 60 radio and television stations can be heard in Iraq and of these about 43 are controlled by the Iranian dictatorship.

Iman translates

In contrast, the coalition provisional authority, the United States, is funding one television station, one radio station and two newspapers. And so the people of Iraq are getting 43 Iranian funded information and propaganda sources aimed at them on the one hand and their also having this very effective and very misleading propaganda instrument of Algizerea and Al Abrabia which essentially takes a line in favor of Islamic extremism and um and all of this is bombarding the people of Iraq and could well mislead many of them and lead many of them into a direction of not understanding what is really going on and lead them including members of the clergy to move in the direction that the Iranian dictatorship would like them, like to see them move.

Iman translates

As a sign of the Iran’s understanding the importance of the media, ah, it’s worth noting that in October 2003 when the coalition wanted to establish one television station, it didn’t do so for some months more. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Iranian supported political movement, protested and said it would stage massive street demonstrations to prevent any such media organization from being established. 1 against 43.

Iman translates

In fact the people of Iran might find the language used by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in late November of 2003 when they opposed the establishment of the media network by the coalition very familiar. The organization said, “If you do not change your programs and submit to our will, we will mobilize the Iraqi street against you.”

Iman translates
Now coming to the fifth method that Iran is using and we come to Hezbollah the extremely lethal effective terrorist organization that is mainly headquartered in Syria and occupied Lebanon and mainly funded and supported by the clerical dictatorship in Iran.

Iman translates

Beginning in the fall of 2003 there were press reports that Hezbollah Kaderum had moved into Iraq and were taking up residents all throughout the country and um one element one person from the U.S. Government said well Hezbollah is not doing anything hostile this must mean that the Iranian regime wants to be peaceful with respect to Iraq.

Iman translates

Now we know from the press reports that Hezbollah is there. There is reports of hundreds and perhaps several thousands Hezbollah Kaderum I don’t know how many its not possible to know that from the press. It is my judgment and now here I want to now help the listeners know that I’m moving from facts that are reported and can be verified to a judgment, a view of mine about what Hezbollah is doing. It is my judgment and I’ll wait for the translation for one moment.

Iman translates

It is my judgment and view that what Hezbollah has been doing and is doing is surveying the various targets for future terrorist attacks in Iraq that would include most likely U.S. Military bases, other coalition military bases, key Iraqi moderate democratic leaders, and their headquarters, political party headquarters, remember the destruction of the three Kurdish headquarters, political party headquarters some months ago. I would also suggest they are surveying civil administration places of the coalitional provisional authority and perhaps communication activities for example the Iraqi media network. All of these places, key places which I believe Hezbollah will seek to recruit Iraqi miss-guided young Iraqi terrorist to go and to conduct terrorist attacks in large scale beginning in July 2004 when the Iranian secret war offensive begins in a serious way in Iraq.

Iman translates

Recently a defector from the Iranian covert action organization said, and this report was carried by the BBC, and I cannot assure the listeners that this is a genuine defectors, the facts are correct, but I think what he said ties in with the facts that I know and with the judgment I have about the future, pattern of the Iranian dictatorship actions, this defectors said that Iran has spent more than one billion dollars in the last year alone in positioning it’s cover networks in Iraq and that this includes, by the way, buying and renting 2700 apartments and houses in which Iranian agents, weapons, terrorist, or assets and so forth are now living in perpetration for the time when this whole network will become activated. Which I believe will start in July 2004, after the turn over of political authority to the Iraqis.

Iman translates

In fact, this defector who was known as the name Hajeed saidie said that the killing of Ayatollah Muhammad akir ala kim the chairman of the council for the Islamic revolution in Iraq was, “one of the most important achievements of the Jerusalem force or the kuds corps. Who succeeded carrying out this mission in Iraq without any difficulty” this is what he said about that. Now, I offer a judgment and it’s speculative but it’s based on 25 years of observation of Iran, the Iranian dictatorship operations, aggressive dictatorship abroad, aggressive terrorism abroad. My judgment is that the eruption of violence by Moktada al-Sadr on April 4th was premature. That it was not part of a coordinated plan, that he acted impetuously and in a sense revealing the part of the Iranian hand inside Iraq by doing so. But that the main activities of the Iranian dictatorship will start when power has been, sovernty has been handed over to the Iraqi institutions which is due as you know to happen in about eight weeks on about July 1st 2004.

Iman translates

And my sense is that the way this… these Iranian supported networks will operate is that the political components will try to take evermore political authority in the civil institution in Iraq. They will do this through normal political means and building coalitions, they will do this through mass demonstrations and they will do this through the terrorist components using violence against their moderate opponents and intimidating them.

Iman translates

A small discussion about time left and when to take callers takes place.

And, the political part will of course be reinforced by the Iranian controlled media which will be backing the Iranian political organizations. And then at the same time the paramilitary groups, which now number about 40,000. The bader brigades attached to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. And then the paramilitaries attached to Moktada al-Sadr who are about six to ten thousand but they’re roughly 40,000. They will be begin attacking, I believe, the coalition forces as well as their political enemies. And at the same time I think Hezbollah and HAMMAS will have recruited the Iraqis for the devastating terrorist attacks on the leadership of the Iraqi political movements, the coalition forces, and all of this Iranian network that uses violence directly will be trying to kill, I believe, as many United States military and civilian personnel working in Iraq as possible. And so I see a time of escalating violence and political destabilization inside of Iran. June, July, August, September, and October intended both to coerce the United States out of Iraq and to defeat President Bush in his reelection effort. That both purposes would be served and then ultimately to bring about a pro-Iranian extremist regime in Iraq.

Iman translates

Iman – at this point I guess we want to talk some about the domestic issues inside Iran?

Yes.

Iman translates

All that of I’ve just described, of course, is very bad news. And is very disturbing. Obviously, for both the people of Iraq and it’s consequences will also be very bad for the people of Iran because it will solidify the dictatorship in Iran. By giving it more support and a greater sense of its own power and invincibility

Iman translates

However, the good news is that we have in recent history many examples of regimes that were very effective in aggressive terrorist operations abroad that were vulnerable at home vulnerable, unpopular and brittle at home as the Iranian dictatorship is. That in fact were overthrown by the peaceful actions of their own people who did, in fact, liberate themselves. And these examples include the communist states of Eastern Europe in the 1989-90. The former Soviet Union in 1991-92 and the communist ultranationalist dictatorship in Serbia. Which had been established in 1945 until the year 2000 and was also overthrown by the peaceful actions of its people. And all of these cases, the nightmare of the Iranian dictatorship that the people would rise up came to pass and the people were successful and freed themselves.

Iman translates

And the people of Iran who are listening to this know, full well, how unpopular the Iranian dictatorship is. The women of Iran know how many of their fellow women disagree with the way in which their equality has been undone by the clerical dictatorship. The young people of Iran, 70% of you are under the age of 30, know how many of your friends are totally opposed to the extreme degree of control and pressure that is required in daily behavior by the clerical dictatorship in Iran. People in daily life know that the economic failure of the clerical dictatorship in Iran and of the massive corruption of the dictatorship and the use of foundations and people in Iran know, all the adults in Iran know, about the billions of dollars every year that the clerical dictatorship diverts to its power objectives, its extremist objectives, its propaganda, its secret warfare and terrorist activities and its weapons of mass destruction activities. Taking this money away from the real needs, the social needs of the people of Iran.

Iman translates

It is my judgment that about 75% of the Iranian people in all social groups including the clergy, the military, the revolutionary guard corps, all oppose the hard-line dictatorship in Iran and want to see a moderate constitutional government with a place for Islam that is respectful and important but not ruled by the clergy.

Iman translates

Now you might ask how does a political analyst in the United States come to a judgment like that and my answer to you is, that in the election process since 1997 we have seen a proxy for the views of the Iranian people in the competition between the candidates who represented the hard-line view of the supreme leader and the somewhat more less hard-line view of President Khatimi. There was a difference and there is a difference between these two groups. And when given a choice to vote the Iranian people had no choice to vote across a broader spectrum because the candidates were not permitted by the council of guardians. But even within that narrow range of choice its worth noting that in the elections of 1997, 2000, 2001 that the people of Iran overwhelmingly voted against the hardliners. And if you look at voting patterns you will see this is true of all the regions of Iran and also among the Iranian military who I believe will stand away and will not act against the people of Iran, if they seek to liberate themselves peacefully, it is also true in the revolutionary guard corps. And I think this frightens the regime because they know how… this shows them how unpopular they are and how they are rejected by the people.

Iman translates

And I believe the summer of 2004 is the historical moment for the people of Iran to liberate themselves. Because they have the opportunity because they’re on both boarders there is a process under way of movement toward moderate constitutional government with respect for Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there is a President in the United States, George W. Bush, who has on many occasions spoken clearly about the fact that Iranian people have a right to live in freedom and that the United States seeks to encourage that and to encourage them to move toward freedom and because the Iranian dictatorship has not yet succeeded in undoing the opportunity of the Iraqi people for freedom and moderate government and reinforcing itself by having done that. It has not yet succeeded. Its about to launch its activities. And so, it’s really a race now between the worst of the Iranian dictatorship’s aggression through terrorism occurring during the summer of 2004. Or the people of Iran recognizing that this may be their last chances for many years to come to peacefully, in many cities at the same time move to end the rule of this dictatorship. And I think the opportunity is there and I think the Iranian people can do this.
Iman translates

And the people of Iran should also know that in exile there are hundreds of thousands of their county men and women who hope for their freedom and liberty and are willing to help them and in fact I think it’s very important for the people of Iran to know that all the Iranian individuals in exile who seek liberty and freedom for the people of Iran have worked very hard to try to organize themselves to give help to the people inside Iran when they try to liberate themselves. For example, the activities by the Alliance for Democracy in Iran, which is a new coalition of pro democracy movements of Iranian exiles. For example, the important work of this radio station and Mr. Morovati and the efforts, which of course, will be very helpful when a new free media is to be established in Iran. The work of the Iran of Tomorrow project in which skilled and talented people, Iranian Americans, have come together to plan ways in which to help a new independent government in Iran realize the wishes of its people to the extent the people of Iran want their help. And so there is a tremendous opportunity and tremendous resources available outside Iran to help the people inside Iran. But the choice is with the people of Iran. Only they can liberate themselves. They can do it. Many dictatorships of this type have fallen and fallen much more quickly than expected. And the time is now. This is the moment.
It was a pleasure to be with you today.
Iman translates

Iman - Dr. Constantine, would you be willing to take a few phone calls?

Yes, about 10 minutes.

Iman translates

Caller – in Farsi

Iman translates into English – This particular listener called from Tehran inside Iran. And his question after thanking you for your time and for your fantastic overview of what is going on in Iran. He was asking that, as you may know, less than maybe 30% of the Iranian people have access to satellite or can hear even these important sources of news such as Radio Sedaye and KRSI. He’s asking you, knowing that how do you think the Iranian people can hear this voice and these messages to know that they or that this is a good time to start doing this perhaps, he was suggesting that, some resources like Radio Farda U.S. government would actually provide some resources for media like KRSI to actually have a better access to the Iranian people that would be very helpful and he wanted to know your opinion on it and that.

I agree completely and I thank the listener for his call from Tehran and I agree completely that there needs to be more broadcasting into Iran and there needs to be more funding for this. And its very important for the Iranian people to hear the voice of freedom and to hear different points of view. And so I agree with that. The U.S. government does have some broadcasting to Iran. We have the new Radio Farda, the voice of America, and there is… I think… that should be expanded. The question of public funds for private broadcast is more complicates and requires legislation in a democratic country and that takes time. It is possible for the Iranian communities in exile who are extraordinary successful, intelligent and hard working and successful individuals, I think, to contribute more funds. And provide funding for and expansion of broadcasting which I think would be a good idea. Also I think there should be a campaign to have more Americans who are not Iranian Americans to also participate in the voice of free broadcasting to Iran. So I think there are… I think there are possibilities for doing so and perhaps it might be a good idea to have some public funds. Though, at times I think in the United States it is just as well to separate publicly funded activities from privately funded activities so that the privately funded activities can remain entirely independent in content and tone and that’s… that’s very important anytime something is publicly funded then its a bureaucracy and then there is public policy and there are certain considerations that are involved with that. So, I agree with you completely. The broadcasting should be expanded and I think this could be done with voluntary contributions from Iranian Americans and Iranians in other countries in exile but also from other Americans who should become more aware of the importance of doing this and I’ll try to write some articles about this and see if I can get them published encouraging American citizens from all backgrounds to contribute more to this.

Iman translates

Caller in Farsi –

Iman translates – Dr. Constantine the listener is from Los Angeles was asking – Now that the 911 commission is going on they’re all talking about who knew what and why they didn’t do something about that before 911 why is it and don’t you think its time the U.S. does something with all the research you have done, all the information you have provided so another 911 specifically all the details you mentioned will not occur again against the U.S. and against the goals of democracy in the region.

I hope so. I agree completely with you and I published about this and I have tried to brief people in the government and in fact I have called this Iran’s secret war of against the U.S in Iraq the next 911. Because unfortunately it seems to me that the well meaning very busy individuals in the U.S. government who are working with the immediate challenges they are facing and are very busy with that, have not had, it seems to me, and it’s is my judgment that they have not connected this patter of Iranian activities. I think it should have never been permitted for Moktada al-Sadr’s armed units, for example, to have grown from 300 people a year ago to nearly 10,000 today, and I think it was an over… a mistake, a misjudgment on the part of the coalitional provisional authority and the U.S. government so I agree with you completely and I’m concerned about whether the expression we use here, “connecting the dots” I’m concerned whether the dots are being connected.

Barry Lowenkron, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, will leave within weeks to become a vice president with the MacArthur Foundation, a private grant-making enterprise, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The departure of Lowenkron, who notably oversaw the State Department's annual human rights report, was announced just three days after the surprise resignation of one of Rice's two deputies, foreign aid director Randall Tobias.

Tobias quit on Friday after being named in the media as a client of a Washington DC call-girl ring.

The National Constitution Center continues its look at national and Homeland Security post 9/11 in a Citizens' Constitutional Conversation ... all » with Richard Clarke, presidential adviser for two decades. Clarke offers an insider's look at terrorism in America by discussing his work of fiction, The Scorpion's Gate, as well as Against All Enemies, and his real life, real time experiences.

Richard Clarke began his career as Presidential Security Advisor in 1973. Clarke provided national security advice to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Clarke specializes in homeland security, counter-terrorism, and cyber-security. He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11th attacks occurred.

Clarke's second book, The Scorpion's Gate, is his first endeavor into the world of fiction. The Scorpion's Gate is a geopolitical thriller set five years into the future. The novel is centered around a battle between the Middle East and the United States to procure oil.

Located on Philadelphia's historic Independence Mall, the National Constitution Center is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its relevance to Americans' daily lives. For more information, call 215.409.6600 or visit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, April may have been one of the cruelest months.

There is little good news on U.S. foreign policy from Iraq and Afghanistan to North Korea and Russia.

On the domestic front, Rice has been subpoenaed to testify about erroneous intelligence used to justify the Iraq war, has fended off criticism from former CIA Director George Tenet and has watched one of her top aides resign amid a sex scandal.

The Bush administration today made it clear it was willing to engage in high-level talks with Iran.
The talks are likely to take place at an international conference on Iraq in Egypt this week.

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, will attend the conference in Sharm el-Sheik, as will the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.

Should they meet face to face at the two-day conference, starting tomorrow, it will be the highest-level contact between the two countries for almost three decades.

The meeting, bringing together officials from the US, Iran, Russia, China, the EU and Arab countries, is to discuss economic aid for Iraq and ways to rein in sectarian strife. But speculation on the possibility of direct substantive talks between the US and Iran has dominated the run-up to the conference.
"The Friday ministerial talks will be an opportunity for us together to work directly for the good of the people of Iraq," the US undersecretary of state for political affairs, Nicolas Burns, told an audience at the Chatham House thinktank in London.

With Mr Bush facing intense Democratic party pressure on funding for the Iraq war, there is now even greater incentive for the US to turn to Iran to help stabilise Iraq.

The third most senior official at the state department, Mr Burns said he hoped Iran would discuss negotiations on the contentious issue of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme, as well as Iraq.

The talks in Egypt, Mr Burns said, "will be important because Secretary Rice will be seated around the table with the Syrian foreign minister and, we hope and think, with the Iranian foreign minister, although the Iranians have been a little bit ambivalent."

Iran has blown hot and cold over such a high-level meeting. There is a debate in Tehran on whether to accommodate a US change of heart.

Mr Mottaki today said Tehran had still not decided whether to accept face-to-face talks with the US. "This case is under review. No final decision has been made yet in this regard," he said.

The comment was much softer than an earlier statement by his own deputy, who claimed the timing was not right for top-level Iran-US talks.

In his remarks, Mr Burns ran through the list of US complaints about Iran. This included Tehran's support to Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and Shia extremists in Iraq, and its nuclear programme.

But Mr Burns emphasised America's wish to engage Iran diplomatically.

"There is a choice: confrontation or diplomacy. We prefer diplomacy and we are trying to open two diplomatic channels - on the nuclear issue and on Iraq," Mr Burns said.

The UN security council has imposed sanctions on Iran for its refusal to accept an international package on aid for developing nuclear power for civilian use in exchange for a halt to uranium enrichment. This would be a first step towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran faces further sanctions later this year should it persist with enrichment.

Despite its new willingness to talk directly to Iran at a senior level, the US still opposes direct negotiations with Iran on nuclear enrichment, a move advocated by the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, who has been meeting Iranian officials on the issue.

"It is better if the nuclear issue stays in that channel," Ms Rice said.

Mr Burns reiterated in London that the US would not negotiate with Iran on nuclear issues until it agreed to stop enrichment as called for by the security council.

Ms Rice, during a stopover in Ireland, said talks with Iran would focus on Iraq, but she would not cut off a conversation if it turned to Tehran's nuclear programme. "I think I can handle any question that is asked of me," she said. "If we encounter each other and wander to other subjects I am prepared to address them at least in terms of American policy."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.conference.ap/index.htmlU.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Syria's foreign minister today in the first high-level talks between the two countries in years. The Bush administration has shunned Syria, and last month President Bush assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for going to Damascus, saying it sent mixed messages.

"I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday, regarding the actions of Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki.

Mottaki walked out of the diplomats' dinner on the pretext that the female violinist entertaining the gathering was dressed too revealingly

1 hr 17 min 14 sec - Nov 8, 2005
Average rating: (24 ratings)
Description: The National Constitution Center continues its look at national and Homeland Security post 9/11 in a Citizens' Constitutional Conversation with Richard Clarke, presidential adviser for two decades. Clarke offers an insider's look at terrorism in America by discussing his work of fiction, The Scorpion's Gate, as well as Against All Enemies, and his real life, real time experiences. Richard Clarke began his career as Presidential Security Advisor in 1973. Clarke provided national security advice to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Clarke specializes in homeland security, counter-terrorism, and cyber-security. He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11th attacks occurred. Clarke's second book, The Scorpion's Gate, is his first endeavor into the world of fiction. The Scorpion's Gate is a geopolitical thriller set five years into the future. The novel is centered around a battle between the Middle East and the United States to procure oil. Located on Philadelphia's historic Independence Mall, the National Constitution Center is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its relevance to Americans' daily lives. For more information, call 215.409.6600 or visit www.constitutioncenter.org.

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: Rice Failed To Deliver What She Said

Rice Failed To Deliver What She Said and Promised
Past Condi Rice Words Does Not Match Her Deeds And Actions Regarding Iran
Rice Failed The Test Cases For The Cause Of Freedom, Secular Democracy, Free Society, The Cause Of Liberation from Islamist Mafia Tyranny, Human Rights, Women Rights For Détente With Islamist Mafia Terror Masters and Appeasing Mullahs ….

To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the ``town square test'': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a ``fear society'' has finally won their freedom.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice departs Andrews Air Force Base, Md., on her first trip as Secretary of State to Europe and the Middle East, Thursday, Feb 3, 2005. (AP Photo/ Jacqueline Malonson )
LONDON -- Iran's approach to human rights and its treatment of its own citizens is loathsome, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. While saying Iranians deserve better leaders than "unelected mullahs," America's new chief diplomat stopped short of demanding their ouster.

"I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people and for the region," Rice said en route to London, her first stop. Her itinerary includes visits to Jerusalem and the West Bank to encourage peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"It should just remind us all that those of us who had the good fortune to live on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to those who are left on the other side of freedom's divide to try to achieve their aspirations," Rice said.

cyrus wrote:

Time is Running Out: Where Is The Real Support for a Free Iran from the Bush Administration?

1) "And secondly, I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran. They need to know America stands squarely by their side. And I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect. "

2) President Bush Praises Iranian Pro-Democracy Protestors KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - President Bush on Sunday praised pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, calling their protests a positive step toward freedom.
"This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran which I think is positive," President Bush said.

"I think that freedom is a powerful incentive," Bush told reporters after he attended church services during a weekend visit to Kennebunkport. "I believe that some day freedom will prevail everywhere because freedom is a powerful drive."

3) Remarks by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice at Town Hall Los Angeles June 12, 2003
"And so for the United States we have to stand with the aspirations of the Iranian people, which have been clearly expressed."

4) Remarks by the President Bush May 9, 2003 "And in Iran, the desire for freedom is stirring. In the face of harsh repression, Iranians are courageously speaking out for democracy and the rule of law and human rights. And the United States strongly supports their aspirations for freedom. "(Applause.)

5) President Bush State of the Union January 28, 2003 "Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. "(Applause.)

"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy,"

Reuters - World News
Nov 6, 2003

WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday challenged Iran and Syria and even key U.S. ally Egypt to adopt democracy and broke with past U.S. policy by vowing Washington will not support Arab states that reject liberty.

"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy," Bush said in a sweeping foreign policy speech. He said Syrian leaders as well as those ousted in Iraq had promised a restoration of ancient glories but instead left "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin."

Of Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak, has been a vital Middle East interlocutor for successive U.S. presidents, Bush said: "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."

The speech was Bush's latest attempt to justify the war in Iraq as necessary to foster democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. troop casualties and as anti-Americanism spreads among many Muslims who feel Islam is under attack.

Bush declared a failure of past U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.

He called for democracy throughout the Middle East, praising the tentative steps that are taking places in such nations as Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is firmly in command.

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it," Bush said.

Statement by the PresidentFebruary 24, 2004
The White House
President Gerge W. Bush

I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran. The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech -- including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers -- in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders.

The United States supports the Iranian people's aspirations to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights, and determine their own destiny.

Statement by the President
March 03, 2004
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

"Our future also depends on America's leadership in this world. The momentum of freedom in our time is strong, but we still face serious dangers. Al Qaeda is wounded, but not broken. Terrorists are testing our will in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regimes of North Korea and Iran are challenging the peace. If America shows weakness and uncertainty in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1548

AmirN wrote:

Political Shortsightedness: A Repeat Offender

Political nature has, by slavery of shortsightedness, dictated numerous courses that have in retrospect found to be not only fallacious but also immoral. Although thousands of such examples can be cited throughout history, only three such examples will be given in this article. These three are picked, because all involve the US as a party and are relatively recent.

1. The Mujahedin

As Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalists rushed in from the region to defend the predominantly Islamic nation from the advancing infidel. The task seemed almost lost from the beginning, as a rag-tag band of impoverished and unorganized fighters attempted to defy one of the world’s two superpowers of the time.

Fortunately for them, that once supreme superpower was tenaciously antagonistic towards the other, which meant that the other superpower was always looking to undermine anything the other did. The US was therefore not far away from this conflict between the Mujahedin of Afghanistan and the Infidels of the USSR.

Shortsighted political nature dictated that the US should support the enemy of its enemy. Such action may prove beneficial for the present and immediate future, but it is not always the soundest recourse if the long-term future is considered.

Shortly, the US was knee deep in fighting this proxy war with the USSR. US funding, military training, military supplies, and logistical support were placed at the fingertips of the Warriors of God, in order to punish and repel the Communists. Within those ranks was, of course, the blooming Osama bin Laden. The training and support that was given to these Mujahedin helped them expel the Soviets, and placed them at a powerful position within Afghanistan, and later, globally as Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, the groomed puppy of the US, would grow up to rabidly bite the hand that fed it years later. The scar of that bite is now visible in Manhattan, and on the psyche of every American.

2. Saddam

Hostage taking, chants of “death to America,” and the vow to extend fundamental Islamic Revolution throughout the world was enough to scare the US into picking another junkyard dog to fend off the now hostile Iranians. Political nature, again through shortsightedness, dictated an allegiance with a shady character – Saddam.

Financial, military, and logistical support again poured into the hands of a criminal in order to combat a greater perceived threat. What’s worse and unforgivable is that a blind eye was turned to an utterly immoral occurrence: the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against Iranians. Don Rumsfeld visited Saddam personally, shook his hand, and gave him a nod of approval with his beady little eyes. That photograph, along with the countless others of disfigured bodies of Iranians and Kurds from chemical attacks, will forever haunt the psyche of every Iranian, if not every human.

Years later, with a slight change of political climate, the once again rabid dog that the US kept as a pet was identified for what it truly was, and was itself attacked. However, by that time, that Iraqi dictator had already done too much damage, and the wrongs of the past could not be rectified.

3. The Islamic Republic

In the present we are potentially witnessing the once again political shortsightedness and desperation of US policy. In its attempt to deal with the error of example #2, the US went to war with Saddam’s Iraq. After 4 years of turmoil and occupation, the US has found itself chasing shadows. A demoralized US constituency and Congress demands every day that the US abandon its efforts in Iraq, which appear fruitless to most.

Out of the fiasco of this Iraqi invasion has emerged an Islamic Republic with more power and boldness than ever. It is a vicious cycle, whereby the civil turmoil leads to loss of US authority and influence, which leads to more Islamic chaotic authority, which enables further civil turmoil and so forth.

In its predicament, the US appears to be reaching at straws. The political need for immediate gratification has apparently influenced the man who once called the IR part of an Axis of Evil to reconsider his call for outright demolition of that axis, and simply ask that the axis kindly reorient its angle. This is echoed in the words of Rice, who said that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to “have a change in regime behavior."

Political shortsightedness knows no bounds. The historical errors of the US follow each other, and it seems that one has actually led to another. To change stance with regard to such a regime will only prolong the inevitable showdown of the US with the Mullahs. Such prolongation and retreat will only lead to the emergence of a more powerful, determined, and emboldened enemy to face in the future.

Elected politicians have a responsibility to not only serve and protect their nation, but to follow a moral path. Many a times have politicians allowed morality to take a back seat to their shortsighted goals. Every time, such a policy has proven to be a mistake both pragmatically as well as morally. This is why elected officials need to be held to a higher moral standard and of higher philosophical character than what is currently deemed acceptable.

Aligning itself with the likes of Mujahedin and Saddam has been a pragmatic and moral mistake. The immoral enemy of my enemy ought not be my friend. Why? First, because morality must be a main goal in and of itself. Second, because the immoral enemy of my enemy will eventually come after me once our common enemy has been neutralized. History is a witness to this.

I have cited two examples of the past, where the US’ need for immediate gratification proved disastrous in the long term. Currently, the third example is unfolding. It is too late for the first two, but the third error in the making can yet be averted, should the US choose to reconsider its currently charted course with respect to Iran.

A rabid dog will bite by nature. One cannot tell it to change its biting behavior, and expect to safely lie down next to it after making such a statement. A rabid dog must be neutralized. Requests and appeals made to it will be in vain. An axis cannot change its angle, and a dog cannot cease to be rabid.

WASHINGTON - Top members of President Bush's national security team are leaving in one of the earliest waves of departures from a second-term administration — nearly two years before Bush's time ends.

As rancor in the nation rises over handling of the war in Iraq, at least 20 senior aides have either retired or resigned from important posts at the White House, Pentagon and State Department in the past six months.

ISTANBUL, TURKEY - Perched on a high hill overlooking Istanbul's old city, the Pierre Loti cafe is named after a 19th-century French bon vivant whose sensual tales of his time in the Ottoman capital have fueled the imaginations of countless tourists.

ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier this year, the local mayor tried to rename the area around the cafe after an Islamic saint whose tomb – a popular Muslim pilgrimage site – is nearby, enraging Turkish secularists. One secularist member of Istanbul's city council accused the mayor, a member of the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP), of being part of a larger plan of Islamization.

It is a charge that is being heard increasingly often in Turkey. Founded on secular ideals by Kemal Ataturk after World War I, the majority-Muslim republic is embroiled in a deep political crisis pitting the AKP-led government against secularists, who fear the liberal Islamic party is gaining too much power. Hundreds of thousands of Turks have turned out for massive rallies held nationwide in recent weeks, frequently expressing the concern that the AKP is enacting incremental local changes that are eroding the country's secular foundations.